Explanation:

The SC never said anything like that about the punishments prescribed.

Vague expressions – Section 66A reads: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.” The court said terms like “annoying”, “inconvenient” and “grossly offensive”, used in the provision are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offence.

Regarding the contention of the State that Section 66A can be supported under the heads of public order, defamation, incitement to an offence and decency or morality, the Court reiterated its earlier stand that it is not open to the State to curtail freedom of speech to promote the general public interest. The Court held that the Section 66A had no proximate relationship to public order whatsoever and mere `annoyance’ need not cause disturbance of public order. the Court concluded that the said section 66A had no element of any tendency to create public disorder which ought to be an essential ingredient of the offence which it create.